The airline is not responding: what silence means and what you can do
At a glance
An airline's silence is neither a refusal nor an admission, and it does not improve the airline's position: it is for the airline to prove that the extraordinary-circumstances exemption applies. The Regulation sets no reply deadline today. Let Airlate follow up, assess the reply and take the claim further.
The airline
bears the burden of proving extraordinary circumstances, even when silent (Art. 5(3))
2 months
to complain after the journey is always in time for a delayed flight in Sweden (NJA 2018 s. 127)
1 year
to refer a dispute to ARN, counted from your first complaint to the airline
In this article
Check your compensation
Free preliminary check. You can change your choice later.
Another flight problemWhat silence means legally
No reply deadline today. Regulation 261/2004 does not say how quickly an airline must reply, and it gives an absent reply no effect as a refusal or an admission. A slow reply is therefore no breach in itself, but no advantage to the airline either.
The burden of proof stays with the airline. For a cancelled flight you may be entitled to compensation under Article 7. The airline escapes only if it can prove that the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken (Article 5(3)). The same applies to a delay of three hours or more (C-315/15, paragraphs 20 and 27), and the exemption is to be interpreted narrowly (C-549/07, paragraphs 17 and 20). An airline that does not reply has proved nothing.
The duty to inform is a separate matter. After a cancellation, denied boarding or a delay of at least two hours, you must be given written information about your rights (Article 14(2)). If you were not, you can tip off the Swedish Consumer Agency (Konsumentverket), which under section 14 of the Air Transport Act (2010:510) supervises compliance with the Regulation.
The timeline after a claim with no reply
Day 0: the claim is made
Keep the date, the confirmation and the case number. The Swedish Supreme Court has held that a passenger claiming for a delayed flight must notify the airline within a reasonable time after the journey, and that two months is always in time (NJA 2018 s. 127, Swedish law). So do not delay.
After 2–4 weeks: no reply yet
ARN, the Swedish National Board for Consumer Disputes, says a company should have replied within four weeks. That is a benchmark, not a deadline in the Regulation. You can send a reminder or let Airlate take over.
After 6–8 weeks: time to move on
Konsumentverket says you can take the matter further if you have waited more than six weeks without a reply, and the Commission's interpretative guidelines recommend that the airline reply within two months. If you flew from Sweden, ARN can examine the dispute even if the airline has not replied, provided ARN's conditions are met. The application must reach ARN within one year of when you first complained to the airline.
Afterwards: a ruling on the merits
ARN's decision is a recommendation, and anyone who is not satisfied can go to court. A claim for compensation is brought before a national court. Konsumentverket does not decide your individual case.
The time limits to keep track of
- Two months: in Sweden, a complaint made within two months of the journey is always in time for a delayed flight (NJA 2018 s. 127).
- One year: the application to ARN must reach it within one year of your first complaint to the airline. Reminders do not move that deadline.
- Other countries, other limits: the Regulation sets no time limits for bringing a claim, so each country has its own rules. See how far back you can claim.
- From 2027: airlines will have a 30-day duty to reply, but only from 23 October 2027 (see below).
The enforcement body will not collect your money
The Commission's guidelines say, citing the Court of Justice, that national enforcement bodies need not act on every individual complaint. Konsumentverket itself says it cannot assess your individual case, resolve disputes or contact companies on your behalf. Your route to a decision runs through a dispute board or a court.
Why it pays to let Airlate take over
Silence does not put the airline in a better position, but it costs you time. Someone has to keep track of the dates, assess every reply and choose the next step. Airlate takes over that work when you submit your claim and accept the terms. Airlate then acts as your representative and handles the claim manually.
Under the General Terms, Airlate assesses the claim and pursues it against the airline if Airlate considers that there are reasonable prospects of success. Airlate decides which measures are appropriate and does not guarantee payment. What Airlate charges for the engagement is set out in the Fee Policy.
| Task | On your own | With Airlate |
|---|---|---|
| Following up with the airline | You watch for the reply, write reminders and keep track of the dates. | Airlate communicates with the airline as your representative once you have submitted your claim. |
| Assessing the reply | You read the Regulation and case law and test the airline's reasons. | Airlate assesses the claim and the reply against the Regulation and case law. |
| Escalating when the silence continues | You choose the route, such as ARN or a court, and handle it yourself. | If the assessment holds, Airlate can take the claim further, under the terms also through alternative dispute resolution or court proceedings. Airlate decides which measures are appropriate and need not continue if the prospects are limited. |
| Your time | You spend time on contacts, documents and deadlines. | You submit the claim and Airlate handles it. Neither the outcome nor the time it takes can be promised. |
What you get to keep
Every company that pursues claims keeps part of the compensation. This is how much of €600 is left for you, according to the companies' own price lists.
What you keep of €600
Of the five companies we compared, you keep the most with Airlate, both when the claim is settled directly and when it goes on to legal process.
| Company | Without legal process | With legal process |
|---|---|---|
| Airlate | €450 | €360 |
| Flyghjälp (Flightright) | €420 | €330 |
| AirAdvisor | €420 | €300 |
| AirHelp | €390 | €300 |
| Skycop | €336 | €300 |
See how Airlate works
When you submit your claim and accept the terms, an engagement is formed and Airlate then handles the claim manually. Read how it works.
New EU rules from 23 October 2027: not in force yet
Regulation (EU) 2026/2202 amends Regulation 261/2004 and applies only from 23 October 2027 (Article 3). Under the new Article 7(9), a request for compensation must be submitted within nine months of the date of departure, and the airline must, within 30 calendar days of receiving it, either pay or explain why it is not paying.
Until then, what is described above applies: no reply deadline in the Regulation. Read more about the new EU rules.
Common questions when the airline is silent
The Regulation sets no binding reply deadline. The authorities give benchmarks: ARN says four weeks, Konsumentverket six weeks and the Commission's interpretative guidelines two months. The time limits for complaining and for ARN run whether or not the airline has replied.
No, do not count on it. The Regulation gives an absent reply no effect as an admission. But silence gives the airline no protection either: it is for the airline to show that the exemption in Article 5(3) applies. If a company does not reply within the set time in an ARN case, the board bases its decision on the information you have submitted.
Yes. You can turn to ARN if its conditions are met, or bring a claim in court. This article is an overview, not individual advice. If you would rather not track deadlines and choose the route, Airlate can take the claim once you have submitted it and accepted the terms.
Check your compensation
Free preliminary check. You can change your choice later.
Another flight problemShow all 11 sources
Every factual statement in this article rests on one of the sources below: EU regulations, judgments of the EU Court of Justice and the authorities' own pages.
Sources
- Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (Articles 5(3), 7, 14(2), 15 and 16(1)–(3)) · EUR-Lex · Regulation · retrieved 2026-10-01
- Commission Notice – Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (C/2024/5687, OJ C, 25.9.2024), sections 8.1, 8.2 and 9.2 · EUR-Lex / European Commission · Authority · retrieved 2026-10-06
- Air Transport Act (lag 2010:510 om lufttransporter), section 14 · Swedish Parliament (Svensk författningssamling) · Other official · retrieved 2026-10-01
- Consumer – how ARN examines your complaint · Swedish National Board for Consumer Disputes (Allmänna reklamationsnämnden, ARN) · Authority · retrieved 2026-10-06
- After you have made a complaint · Swedish National Board for Consumer Disputes (Allmänna reklamationsnämnden, ARN) · Authority · retrieved 2026-10-01
- Dispute areas – Travel (compensation under Regulation 261/2004) · Swedish National Board for Consumer Disputes (Allmänna reklamationsnämnden, ARN) · Authority · retrieved 2026-10-01
- Delayed flight – when can you get compensation and help? (Försenat flyg – när kan du få ersättning och hjälp?) · Swedish Consumer Agency (Konsumentverket) · Authority · retrieved 2026-10-06
- NJA 2018 p. 127 ("Flyget till Antalya"), judgment of 15 March 2018 in case T 2659-17 · Supreme Court of Sweden (Högsta domstolen), reproduced on lagen.nu from rattspraxis.etjanst.domstol.se · Case law · retrieved 2026-10-06
- Regulation (EU) 2026/2202 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2026 amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 (OJ L, 2.10.2026) · EUR-Lex · Regulation · retrieved 2026-10-06
- Judgment in Case C-549/07, Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (Fourth Chamber, 22 December 2008) · EUR-Lex / Court of Justice of the EU · Case law · retrieved 2026-10-01
- Judgment in Case C-315/15, Marcela Pešková and Jiří Peška v Travel Service a.s. (Third Chamber, 4 May 2017) · EUR-Lex / Court of Justice of the EU · Case law · retrieved 2026-10-01